• February 23, 2019, 09:49:37 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Welcome to ILLINOIS PRISON TALK, www.illinoisprisontalk.org - A Family Support Forum and Information Center for those interacting with the Illinois Department of Corrections. IPT members are comprised of family/friends of inmates, prison reform activists, ex-offenders, prisoner rights advocates and others interested in the well-being of Illinois prisoners. We encourage open discussion but please be tolerant of other's opinions. This website is protected by Copyright © 2006-2019. All rights reserved. There are some private forums that require registration, please register.

Author Topic: Blakely v. Washington  (Read 7931 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Scout

  • Research Specialist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5531
  • Karma: 273
Blakely v. Washington
« on: March 30, 2006, 07:24:16 PM »
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-1632.ZO.html

Held: Because the facts supporting petitionerís exceptional sentence were neither admitted by petitioner nor found by a jury, the sentence violated his Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury.
Together, we CAN make a difference


It's difficult to have a battle of wits with unarmed individuals.

Offline Jims

  • Juvenile Justice Specialist/Research Specialist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5395
  • Karma: 269
  • Throw Away the Key
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2006, 10:02:05 PM »
A case that will look at Blakely retroactivity was accepted for cert. by the SCOTUS and will be on the fall 2006 docket!

(This excerpt was taken from Professor Berman's site):

June 5, 2006
Supreme Court to take up Blakely retroactivity!

Though I was prepared for the big SCOTUS sentencing news to emerge from new opinions, instead the news comes from a cert grant.  As reported here at SCOTUSblog:

    The Court also agreed to hear a case on the retroactivity of its ruling in Blakely v. Washington, one of a series of rulings limiting criminal sentences when facts have not been found by a jury, but by a judge.  The new case is Burton v. Waddington (05-9222). The case tests whether Blakely established a new rule and, if it did, whether it applies retroactively. The Court's grant of review of these issues was something of a surprise, since the Court has repeatedly refused to hear retroactivity claims on the Apprendi line of cases.

One of many ironies here, of course, is that Blakely retroactivity is one of the few major post-Blakely issues that has not generated much of a lower court split in the states or in the federal system.  Nevertheless, this issue has long been on my list of post-Blakely issues that SCOTUS should resolve.  And I am, of course, please to see SCOTUS take my advice to fill its fallow docket with Blakely and Booker issues.

Right now, I know nothing about the particulars of Burton v. Waddington except that it comes from the Ninth Circuit.  Readers are encouraged to fill me in, and I'll be doing a bit of my own digging. Good thing I already have this Apprendi/Blakely Retroactivity category archive collecting my posts on this topic. 
What's done to children, they will do to society.  ~Karl Menninger

Offline Jims

  • Juvenile Justice Specialist/Research Specialist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5395
  • Karma: 269
  • Throw Away the Key
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2006, 11:20:39 PM »
Cunningham has been heard by the SCOTUS and awaits a decision. Professor Berman's blog site is, as usual, excellent in its coverage for those who are interested in the Apprendi/Blakely/Booker including expert analysis and predictions of where it's going. I urge everyone whose inmate may be affected by these cases, either as they stand now or should retroactivity be applied, to read up on it. Berman's site has links to the transcripts:

http://sentencing.typepad.com/

What's done to children, they will do to society.  ~Karl Menninger

Offline Schrader42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • Karma: 206
  • "Happiness is being married to your best friend."
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2007, 01:57:05 PM »
It looks like the court issued a per curiam ruling on Burton today and I just can't understand the wording used.  Seems like they avoided the retroactivity of Blakely. 

Here's the link, anyone out there an expert on these difficult opinions?  My husband's attorney is relying heavily on Burton in order to argue his case.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-9222.pdf

Offline Dazzler

  • Editor-in-Chief
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 22399
  • Karma: 354
  • Retired News Reporter ~ Prison Reform Advocate
    • Illinois Prison Talk
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2007, 02:01:32 PM »
Perhaps you could post this question to one of our Attorneys in ASK OUR ATTORNEY...one should be here today.
~ "I have visited some of the best and the worst prisons and have never seen signs of coddling, but I have seen the terrible results of the boredom and frustration of empty hours and pointless existence." ~ US Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger

~ "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
~ Mahatma Gandhi

Offline Schrader42

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2663
  • Karma: 206
  • "Happiness is being married to your best friend."
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2007, 02:04:25 PM »
Thanks Dazzler, I will post it now.  Hopefully they can figure it out - too confusing and I'm a bit disappointed that they avoided the important issues.

Offline Jims

  • Juvenile Justice Specialist/Research Specialist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5395
  • Karma: 269
  • Throw Away the Key
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2007, 06:36:49 PM »
Yes, they definitely sidestepped the retroactivity issue. It sounds to me as if they were denying, or issuing a kind of non-ruling based on the fact that he should never have been allowed to file a second habeas since he filed his first one while a state appeal was still in process. It's a bulls*** technicality if you ask me, and pretty chickens*** of the justices to have accepted this case for cert and then made this "ruling." What the hell is Roberts thinking? There must be a hundred or more cases seeking cert from SCOTUS with a case that would answer the retroactivity issue on either Blakely or Apprendi. But it's not this one.
What's done to children, they will do to society.  ~Karl Menninger

Offline downtownchicago

  • Banned
  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 0
  • Karma: 0
Re: Blakely v. Washington
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2007, 07:52:04 PM »
Here's a layman's terms kind of summary:


WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a convicted rapist's plea to reduce his prison sentence, without deciding whether the court's three-year-old ruling on prison sentences applies to older cases.

The justices said in an unsigned opinion that Lonnie Lee Burton's appeal had procedural problems that should have prevented it from being heard in the first place.

Burton had asked the court to cut his 46-year prison term by 21 years. The sentence was imposed by a judge in Washington state in 1998, but Burton's lawyer said the 2004 ruling limiting judges' discretion in handing out prison time should apply to Burton's case.

Washington and 18 other states disagreed.

Tuesday's court action was unusual only in that the justices accepted Burton's case in June and heard argument in November before determining that lower courts had been wrong to consider the merits of Burton's appeal. Even so, those courts had ruled against him.

The court has other cases pending that it could use to decide whether inmates can reopen challenges to prison sentences based on its ruling in Blakely v. Washington. In the 2004 decision, the court said judges, acting alone, could not impose longer prison terms based on certain aggravating factors. Those factors must first be proved to a jury.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070109/D8MHRTG81.html